The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

I started to see the limtations of the trinity

Tektrader

Member
Well after a few months of shooting, its becoming pretty obvious the trinity isn't cutting it any longer.

The 24-70 has quite bad soft corners and fairly crappy Bokeh, The 70-200 needs different microfocus at each end and ordinary Bokeh.

Zoom functions seem more of a distraction these days than an advantage.

14-24 seems OK

Question is, what primes to replace the 2 with, keeping in mind I want bitingly sharp lenses, AF and strong corner performance?

Would love a 200 F2 but cant float that kind of money....

Suggestions?
 
M

mjr

Guest
Hi

I went with a mixture of Zeiss and Nikkor primes, I have the Zeiss 21 and 135 f2 and the Nikkor 85 f1.8 and the 200 f2, I have some others but these are all extremely sharp on a D800. Depends if you need af, I'm not bothered for what I shoot.

Mat
 

Tektrader

Member
Already have a 50 1.8 (would like a 1.4 though)

I am thinking Sigma 35 1.4, Nikon 85 1.4 (what is the LOCA like on the 1.4? the 1.8 was rubbish) Need something around 135mm with AF and good corners, and a 200mm solution...

What has the sample variation on the Sigma 35 been like ?? How consistent are they? Worth buying on line or too risky?
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
I think you have made the most important decision ….can you accept manual focus for some or all of your lenses . The most obvious manual focus option would be the Zeiss Zf.2 lenses . The OTUS 55/1.4 could be the very best lens available for the FF format . The 135/2 is a close second . The wide angles are superb ….15/2.8,21/2.8 ,25/2 are top of their classes . The older Zeiss formulas are less well corrected for aberrations but they can be excellent depending on the intended use .

The converted Leica R lenses are also in a different league (much better) and have exceptional character ….but it takes some effort to build a set of R lenses for Nikon .

In the Nikon lenses ….I have stuck with the 24/35/58/85 ….1.4 lenses . Individually you might find a better alternative(like the Sigma) ….but as a group these have a consistency in character (bokeh for example ) . You need to establish your post processing to optimize the results as these have slightly lower contrast than the zeiss lenses and not quite the character of the Leica R lenses.

As always the best fit is often based on the intended usage . I do street,travel,sports and family in that order …so only limited landscape and no real studio work . My next lens will be the Nikon 28/1.4 AF which should be on the way to me .

If your 24-70/2.8 isn t sharp wide open you have a bad copy ..very common . Nikkors have a 5 year warranty and Nikon repaired my copy after I insisted it was far worse than my friends 24-70/2.8 . I was amazed at the improvement . The size and handling are pretty bad ..but I was really happy about the IQ once it was corrected .
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
The Sigma 35mm 1.4 was the best med/wide lens I've ever owned. I sold my Zeiss 21mm for it! The 85mm 1.4 G is also outstanding, just watch for CA at 1.4 in high contrast situations. I really loved the Zeiss 18mm too, much more then the Zf.2 21mmf2.8. Yes, they're manual, but hyperfocal for good results. Also, the hard infinity stops on the Zf.2 lenses are handy when shooting stars. Sigma also has a new 120-300mm that's supposed to be really good for a zoom.
 

Tektrader

Member
Thanks for the replies. The 24-70 is sharp in the centre, but the corners not so much. I would really prefer an af solution. While I do a lot of landscapes and can take my time. Many times I am lazy and can't be bothered with using live view and a tripod.

Leia R's have interested me but I find they are pretty sought after and not cheap. Most Zeiss are pretty expensive for what you get being MF.

I can see the 85 1.4 Nikon happening. Nikon 35 not so much. any other Suggestions?
 

BSEH

New member
IMHO, If the deal is no MF, then with the 85 1.4G, 70-200 f/4G and 200 f/2 you at the end station. In the short end you don't find better AF nikon lenses then the 14-24 you have.

New line is Sony ILCE A7(r)... That made me reconsider MF lenses
 

JohnBrew

Active member
Since you have the WA covered with the 14-24, I recommend and use: Zeiss 50 Makro, Nikon 85 1.4G and 105 2.5 Ai. If you're used to shooting @ 200 on the long end, you may want to supplement with a 180 2.8.
Good luck with your choices.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Also, remember that mixing different lens formulas (different companies), and you won't get a uniform aesthetic if displaying photos in a gallery or publication. I generally try to stay with one companies "look" for uniformity that's more pleasing when viewed together.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
IMHO, If the deal is no MF, then with the 85 1.4G, 70-200 f/4G and 200 f/2 you at the end station. In the short end you don't find better AF nikon lenses then the 14-24 you have.

New line is Sony ILCE A7(r)... That made me reconsider MF lenses
I understand the choice for MF.

BUT - for AF there need to be first much more options for Sony FE mount before I even consider this system.

BTW - I cannot complain about the 2.8/70-200 VRII, but rather am not so impressed by my 1.4/85 G.

Obviously different tastes.
 
M

mjr

Guest
I would really prefer an af solution. While I do a lot of landscapes and can take my time. Many times I am lazy and can't be bothered with using live view and a tripod.
Just my opinion but if you're not using best practices with these lenses then you aren't doing them justice, spending on primes isn't necessarily going to get you sharper shots if you aren't going to use good technique, i.e tripod, MLU and live view. Obviously I'm not suggesting that this is the only way to take photographs, just that it can go a long way to getting sharper images.

Mat
 

BSEH

New member
I understand the choice for MF.

BUT - for AF there need to be first much more options for Sony FE mount before I even consider this system.
Agree on there is need for more options in AF before Sony is a equal competitor to Nikon. But right now you get Zeiss glass with AF, thats not possible with Nikon.

And Mf on Nikon is a pain, if you have so bad eyes as i have (old man syndrom) ... and with A7 it so easy.
 

jduncan

Active member
Well after a few months of shooting, its becoming pretty obvious the trinity isn't cutting it any longer.

The 24-70 has quite bad soft corners and fairly crappy Bokeh, The 70-200 needs different microfocus at each end and ordinary Bokeh.

Zoom functions seem more of a distraction these days than an advantage.

14-24 seems OK

Question is, what primes to replace the 2 with, keeping in mind I want bitingly sharp lenses, AF and strong corner performance?

Would love a 200 F2 but cant float that kind of money....

Suggestions?

I have no inside information, but from the quality of the new 120-300 f2.8 from sigma I will wait, if possible, until they introduce an Art version of the 70-200.

At this moment the tamron is competitive with the Nikon at much lower price but it may not cut if for you.

I hope Sigma introduces a 70-200 with good design and exotic glass.
If you are resolute to leave the zoom, what about used ?

Best regards,

J Duncan
 

Tektrader

Member
Just my opinion but if you're not using best practices with these lenses then you aren't doing them justice, spending on primes isn't necessarily going to get you sharper shots if you aren't going to use good technique, i.e tripod, MLU and live view. Obviously I'm not suggesting that this is the only way to take photographs, just that it can go a long way to getting sharper images.

Mat
I am hearing you on this...... recently I bought into wide format printing and have re-examined a lot of my older shots that looked perfectly acceptable before...... I started printing them BIG.

Agree manual focus can make you slow down and improve your technique, In fact my best shots where made this way using live view and in fact doing this is where I can see the limitations of the lenses. At 53, my eye sight is not getting any better so if I can remove that and use the live view focus points then that's a better solution.

BUT the 80% of the time I am not taking serious shots is why I would like to retain AF. Now if the D800 had focus peaking, That would be a different ball of wax......

I wont abandon Nikon for Sony especially now they invented yet another lens mount.... I always speculated that the Nikon aliasing filter NOT being ALL THAT NEUTRAL on the D800e and have been waiting for someone to entirely pull the filters out of the camera and replace it with a glass cover. I suspect the A7r PQ advantage would disappear if that was done.
 

jsf

Active member
I am curious at what f/stop do you prefer to work? I have both the d800e and d700 and from 55mm up to 300mm all of my primes are bitingly sharp center to edge, but I rarely work wide open.
 

Tektrader

Member
I am curious at what f/stop do you prefer to work? I have both the d800e and d700 and from 55mm up to 300mm all of my primes are bitingly sharp center to edge, but I rarely work wide open.
Typically between F3.5 and F8, sometimes as high as F13. It does improve the edge performance somewhat but there are still issues with field curvature and edge focus on the zooms. The 70-200 is the best in this regard.

The 14-24 works perfectly so don't see a need to change that.

I have fallen back to using the 50 1.8 when I want focus uniformity but I am finding it a bit long. Maybe I should be looking at the 45mm T/S for landscape work and just keep the zooms for general use??
 

JonPB

New member
From what I've seen, there are three ways of understanding what you've said:

(1) You want to have lenses that will allow for more technical quality in ("BIG") prints than what your 24-70 and 70-200 provide when used without serious care for technique ("80% of the time"). That's not going to happen: when you throw technique out the window, luck will make more difference in image quality than any lens upgrade. Your technical demands exceed what can be obtained through casual shooting. But I think you know that, so, moving on...

(2) I think what you're looking for are two different kits: one for serious shooting, when you intend to make large prints, and one for casual shooting, when you're just trying to capture the moment. I don't know about current used Nikon lens pricing, but you could probably sell your two fast zooms for a single f/4 moderate-wide to moderate-telephoto, to meet your casual needs, plus two manual primes that have pleasant rendering wide open and technical merit through the wazoo when stopped down. As far as which primes to pick, there are many between 24mm and 200mm, so you'd have to decide where your interests lie. If you don't know off hand, I'd say: Leica R 50/2, 90/2, and 180/3.4, pick two. But then, I'm partial to the R system, which is/because that's what I shoot. If you know what focal ranges you're looking at, the good people of the forum can be more helpful. :)

(3) Lastly, it might be that your current lenses have particular aberrations that bother you. (Personally, while I love Pentax kit, the axial chromatic aberrations that permeate their lenses drove me away.) If that's the case, show us examples of what you dislike so we can help you put a name to it and point you in a direction that you might find more pleasing.

Cheers,
Jon
 
Top